Goodyear Rubber Manuf Co v. Goodyear Rubber Co

Decision Date10 December 1888
Citation9 S.Ct. 166,128 U.S. 598,32 L.Ed. 535
PartiesGOODYEAR'S RUBBER MANUF'G CO. et al. v. GOODYEAR RUBBER CO. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Frederic H. Betts, J. E. Hindon Hyde, and Samuel R. Betts, for appellants.

w. w. MacFarland, for appellee.

FIELD, J.

This was a suit in equity, brought by the Goodyear Rubber Company, a corporation created under the laws of New York, to restrain Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Company, a corporation created under the laws of Connecticut, and others, defendants below, from using the name of 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' or any equivalent name in their business. The bill alleges that the plaintiff was organized as a corporation on the 20th of November, 1872, for the purpose of manufacturing and dealing in India rubber and gutta-percha goods, under its corporate name, in the city of New York; that it engaged in business in that city, where it has three large warehouses, with branch houses in other cities; that since its organization it has continually used its corporate name on signs at its various places of business and factories, on its bill and letter heads, on its various articles of manufacture, and on its corporate seal in contracts and other business transactions; that by reason thereof it has become possessed of an exclusive right and title to its corporate name, which, from its inseparable connection with the business and good-will of the company, has become of great value; and that its exclusive use is essential to the prosperity of the plaintiff. The bill then sets forth that at the time of its organization there existed a corporation carrying on business in the city of New York under the name of 'Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Company,' and dealing in various articles of which India rubber formed a component part, its business being similar to that of the plaintiff; that prior to the organization of the plaintiff, in November, 1872, that company conducted its business under its corporate name, using it on its business signs, on its letter and bill heads, on its seal, and in all contracts and business transactions; that after the creation and organization of the plaintiff that company began to call itself 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' and, for the purpose of diverting to itself the business and goodwill of the plaintiff, resorted to various devices and contrivances having for their object the imitation and appropriation to its use of the plaintiff's name; that among these devices was the representation of the words 'India' and 'Glove,' sometimes in small letters, and sometimes by initials, thereby constituting a name for practical purposes almost identical with the name of the plaintiff, producing much loss and inconvenience to plaintiff's business, by causing a diversion of letters and telegrams addressed to it; that for the like purpose of taking from the plaintiff its customers and trade, and appropriating its good-will, that company, on or about the 1st of January, 1882, adopted for its principal sign the name 'Goodyear's Rubber Mfg. Co.' over the entrance to and in front of its warehouses; and that these devices deceive the public, and divert business and customers from the plaintiff, by which it sustains, and, without the interference of this court, will in the future sustain, great loss and damage. The bill also alleges that the defendants Allerton and Vermule, with other persons unknown to the plaintiff, pretend to be a corporation under the name of 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' and that they are the principal owners and managers of the business carried on under the name of 'Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Company,' and of 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' and, as such, direct and control whatever is done under the names of both.

The several defendants appeared, and filed answers to the bill. These allege in similar terms that the defendant Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Manufacturing Company was organized as a corporation under that name, in Connecticut, in 1847, for the purpose of manufacturing India rubber goods, and in 1849 obtained license for their manufacture under patents of Charles Goodyear, and continued in that business during the existence of those patents; that after their expiration, and in 1865, and continuously since, it has manufactured and sold very largely all kinds and classes of India rubber goods, treated according to the patents of Goodyear; that it has been for upwards of 20 years the most prominent corporation or association in the city of New York engaged in the manufacture of those goods, and has become known to the trade by abbreviated and generally used titles of 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' or 'Goodyear Rubber Company,' or 'The Goodyear's Company,' and other similar titles Abbreviated from its full corporate name; that the name of 'Goodyear,' in connection with the word 'Company,' or 'Co.,' or with similar brief letters or words indicating a company engaged in rubber manufacturing, has been its distinguishing characteristic; that by adoption of the name of Goodyear, in connection with its business and acquiescence of the public therein, and general usage, that company acquired a valuable right and interest in it, and has exercised the same for upwards of 20 years; that its use has been recognized by the plaintiff and its predecessors in repeated business transactions; that a large part of its correspondence during this period has been under the abbreviated names of 'Goodyear Rubber Company,' 'Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company,' or 'Goodyear's Company,' or other similar abbreviated title; that it registered a trade-mark in the name of Goodyear's Rubber Manufacturing Company, and for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
161 cases
  • Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co. v. Standard Paint Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 11, 1908
    ... ... Because of the close ... resemblance of the gum to rubber and the durability and ... flexibility of the roofing, it ... v. Yacubian, 39 C.C.A. 321, 98 F. 872. In Goodyear ... Co. v. Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 604, 9 Sup.Ct. 166, ... ...
  • Shaver v. Heller & Merz Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 29, 1901
    ... ... v. Trainer, 101 U.S. 52, 56, ... 25 L.Ed. 993; Goodyear's India-Rubber Glove Mfg. Co ... v. Goodyear Rubber Co., ... ...
  • Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States United States v. Schechter Poultry Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1935
    ...Primarily, and strictly, it relates to the palming off of one's goods as those of a rival trader. Good-year's Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Good-year Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, Page 532 604, 9 S.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 198 U.S. 118, 140, 25 S.Ct. 6......
  • Kid Car NY, LLC v. Kidmoto Techs. LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 9, 2021
    ...capable of distinguishing the goods or services." Id. (emphasis in original) (discussing Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 9 S.Ct. 166, 32 L.Ed. 535 (1888) ).The Second Circuit has repeatedly explained that the "classification of a mark is a factua......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Rules That Adding ".com" To A Generic Term Can Result In A Protectable Mark
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 3, 2020
    ...is not generic. In proposing its per se rule, the PTO relied on Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (1888). In Goodyear, which predated the Lanham Act, the Court held that adding the word 'Company' to an otherwise generic mark does not make it protect......
  • Supreme Court Rejects Per Se Rule That "generic.com" Is Generic
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 3, 2020
    ...its proposed exclusionary rule follows from a common-law principle, see Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 (1888), that a generic corporate designation added to a generic term does not confer trademark eligibility. The PTO argued that "Generic.com" ......
  • Supreme Court Upholds Booking.com Trademark Registration
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 2, 2020
    ...the mark was per se generic. The PTO's proposed per se rule derived from Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 (1888). There, the Court had found GOODYEAR RUBBER COMPANY was ineligible for trademark registration because adding a corporate designation t......
8 books & journal articles
  • 31 Trademark Law's Monopoly Problem: The Supreme Court on Generic Terms as Trademarks
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 13-3, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...n Endnotes 1. No. 19-46 (U.S. June 30, 2020). 2. See Booking.com B.V. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 915 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2019). 3. 128 U.S. 598 (1888). 4. Booking.com , No. 19-46, slip op. at 2. 5. Id. at 7. 6. Id. at 6. 7. Id. ; see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. 8. See Transcript of Ora......
  • Federal Law of Unfair Competition
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 531 (1935); Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 604 (1888). 2. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry, 295 U.S. at 532 (citing International News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 241-42 (1918))......
  • Federal Law of Unfair Competition
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook. Second Edition Business Tort Law
    • June 23, 2006
    ...in the 1. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 531 (1935); Goodyear’s Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 604 (1888). 2 . Schecter Poultry , 295 U.S. at 532 (citing Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 241, 242 (1918)); see Cottman ......
  • Protecting Children's Privacy in the Age of Smart Toys
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 13-3, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...n Endnotes 1. No. 19-46 (U.S. June 30, 2020). 2. See Booking.com B.V. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 915 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2019). 3. 128 U.S. 598 (1888). 4. Booking.com , No. 19-46, slip op. at 2. 5. Id. at 7. 6. Id. at 6. 7. Id. ; see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. 8. See Transcript of Ora......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT